A Witty Title.

We can have both here. Question: Why do you get into a relationship? A? to spend more time with the person and among other things work out if thye are the one. If we didn't need to work this out then we could just marry them on the 1st date.

I do agree that you shouldn't start a relationship with someone you could not marry. I would even go so far are to not limit this to only Christians.

While you are in the relationship you are working on things. In my case one of the quetion I ask myself every now and then when in a relationship is "would I marry this person?". If the answer is no, then there is no point going on. There may be good things in the relationship but in the end if you are not going to marry the person then it's a waste of time for both parties.
 

Once again, what gadgit said. Things change over time and the more time you spend with an individual the clearer an idea you get of who they actually are. While you may think you could marry someone at the beginning of a relationship, it doesn't mean that you will feel the same a year later. My feeling is that, while it is ideal to not go out with someone unless you are convinced you can marry them, it simply doesn't work that way. People are imperfect, and that includes one's perceptions of others. If it weren't the case, then we wouldn't even worry about getting engaged (much less dating); we'd go straight to getting married.

My point is this: it is noble to hold the point of view that you shouldn't get into a relationship with someone you could not marry. But, in the end, you don't know until you are in the relationship whether or not you can marry someone, you can only guess.
 

To clarify my own point of view - firstly, I don't believe you should start a /serious/ relationship with somebody you don't intend to marry. Dating is fine, though it certainly isn't for me - but if you're actually going to do anything serious with that person, I feel you should be absolutely confident that you can stay with them forever. It's just a waste of time - not to mention cruel and irresponsible - to do that sort of thing without commitment. Yes, I'm speaking as somebody who has had only two romantic relationships, one of which ended in marriage, but I'm also speaking as somebody who deeply regrets having hurt the first guy, and should have realised sooner that she didn't love him in that way (though to clear up any confusion, we never got "physical").

Secondly, if you have the right level of commitment, I think that whatever level you wish to take your relationship to is fine. Christians often forget that in the end, what we call "marriage" is only a ceremony - a nice official and legal way to show everybody you're committed, and certainly something you should do if you /are/ serious, but not a necessary part of the commitment. What matters is what you believe, and what you are willing to promise to each other (and God, if you are so inclined), and hold to that promise. Indeed, Talen tells me that the original meaning of "marriage" as used in the bible has nothing to do with the ceremony and is only about the promise, but since I can't support that myself I'm not going to state it as fact.

Thirdly, and above all in my mind, you shouldn't marry anybody who isn't also your best friend. The person you marry needs to be the person you are closest to in /every/ way, as a friend and as a lover. They need to share what you enjoy and vice-versa - not completely, but /enough/. If you can't be with them as a friend, rather than just in a situation where you're scoping them out for a relationsip, then the relationship wouldn't work out. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.
 

Hmm, nice work people. I think lots of good stuff has been said by all.
Just thought I would put in an encouraging word where appropriate! :)
 

I'm not advocating getting into a relationship with someone you aren't atracted to or don't feel you could have a serious relationship with. What I am saying (again) is that you cannot know. Only through experiencing the person and a relationship with the person can you know if this a partnership for life.

Otherwise I agree with most everything Fox said. However unpopular it is in the church, I do feel that a marriage is a marriage if it is sworn to be forever in the eyes of God. The ceremony itself is simply custom.
 

The ceremony is also part of the Law of the Land that we are called to obey. If you havent signed the stuff, the country doesnt consider you married (apart from de-facto stuff).
So, I think the ceremony is more important than what LL said. Also, when is this swearing to be forever done? Do you just do it over a cup of coffee? The purpose is that it is in front of witnesses who will hold you to your promises.
 

Stoobie, you can be married without the ceremony - all you need is the legal recognition, which you can get at any valid office. If all you want to do is march into the office and get your names put on the certificate, you can do that, no ceremony necessary - the legal registration is separate from the ceremony. And in any case, I was talking about marriage as it is used in the bible, not in a modern-day legality sense.

Swearing to be forever can be done any damn time you please - why shouldn't it be? If you mean what you promise, the time or place or people don't mean squat (though I'd take a nice cool class of Pepsi Max over coffee any day, just in terms of personal preference). If I recall correctly, Talen and I were hanging out in my room at the time (he may or may not have been playing "Yoshi's Island").

The purpose of promising in front of relatives and friends isn't that they will hold you to your promise - what are they, a bunch of supervisors? It's not their place to hold you to your promise, and it's awfully cynical to treat them like that - and in any case, a witness observes, not enforces.

Is not the actual purpose of a ceremony is to share the joy of your wedding day with the people who are important to you, to come together and celebrate a wonderful moment of your life?
 

My phrasing of this is: Don't continue a relationship with someone you couldn't marry. The general thrust is that relationships should be considered seriously, remembering there are two people, and we shoud treat each other as people, who are extremely valuable.

Hm, I think the wedding is both. Yes you can get "married" anywhere at anytime. But for me the wedding as much about sharing my joy, as declaring support.

Though I'd rather we focused on the marriage rather than the ceremony. But I also think the wedding does play greater role than simply a ceremonial one.
 

What is a de facto relationship if not a legal marriage style relationship in the eyes of the law of the world? These days, the partners in such a relationship have the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone in a registered marriage.
 

Yeah, I know you can go to the registrar's office and get married (My mum and step father did that), but there is still a witnesses signature on the certificate.
As for where, I know you can make that promise anywhere. I guess my point was more that lots of people have ideas about their relationship (about it being forever for example) that they have not actually vocalised to the other person, they just think the feeling is mutual. Things like wedding ceremonies are also helpful in that they clearly define the relationship for the benefit of the parties involved, but also for friends and family.
As for de-facto, it is my understanding that you have to be in a pseudo-marriage for 2 years before you are recognised as de-facto? So, during that time you arent considered married by the state.
One other thing, I guess much of the reason I want to say a wedding (or some kind of public declaration of your relationship) is important is that in lots of cases, both parties have different ideas of the nature and future of the relationship. These promises havent actually been made to one another, they are just one persons ideas on the relationship.
As for Christians, I believe we are called not only to do what is right, but to be seen to do what is right and consistent with what the bible says. It says that you shouldnt have sex before you are married. From a random outsiders point of view, since they do not know these promises have been made, they see two people who are unmarried, living as though they are. I think they could easily think Christians are a bunch of hypocrites.
 

Because, lords knows, Christians are responsible for the thoughts in others' heads. Also, Christians should avoid being black, so as to not give the appearance of being part of a racial minority (which has such a negative connotation, don't you know?).
 

To be fair talen, People have a responsibilty to manage others responses where they can.

I mena how do you respond to someone whos attitude is "Im gonna be me, and keep being me. If you dont like it, thats your problem."

To me that attitude is incredibly problematic. Its basically implying that you dont have a responsibility to make any effort to make it easier for others to relate to you. (I speak with authority on this, that attitude used to be me)

Whats my point? To some extent, you do have a responsibility to be aware of how others will react to what you do, and, if you want your life to be an example of the way you life, a respnsibility to present the right image in living it.

Thoughts?
 

How about not being judgemental? Or is that too much to ask?
 

Huh? Can you explain what you mean by judgemental, and where I was ?

Matt
 

I actually agree with Talen. (On a christian matter! The mind boggles!) No matter what we do we cannot control what other people think. Now, if I have a choice between living my life in as godly a way as I can possibly manage, or only appearing to do so to the general populace, belive me when I say I am going to choose the former, irrespective of what other people, christian or non-christian, think of me or the faith as a result. I can only be responsible for my own actions; the most I can do elsewhere is encourage others to live a life pleasing for God and to take responsiblity for their own actions. If people perceive my life as reflecting negatively on christianity when I am living it it accordance with what God asks of me, then it there is not much I can do about it and I do not feel that the choices I make in such a situation are wrong in God's eyes. Are you going to stop believing homosexuality to be a sin because it makes christians look like bigots? Are you going to tell people it's okay to get a divorce because it's what the world wants to hear? Are you going to stop professing your faith because it makes christians look pushy?

The most anyone can do is live their life as much as they possibly can in accordance with God's will. How other people view it is between them and God. Christ says we are in the world, not of the world: of course what we do is going to beinapprpriate in the eyes of the world. This doesn't matter as long as it is right in the eyes of God.

And what is right in the eyes of God? "Love the Lord your God wih all your heart and all your mind and all your soul. This is the great and first commandment and the second is like it: love your neighbour as you love yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets."
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Morality is NOT defined by what others are going to think of you (or the social group to which you belong). You ask your self "is this right?" not "is this acceptable?".
I can't & wont agree with an attitude that says my lifestyle should be dictated by "a responsibility to present the right image".
How I live my life is based upon my individual morality, principals & priorities, NOT what others will think of it.

(sorry if that was a bit irrate
 

Ok, Sorry, I havent made my point very well

Yes I completly agree, the important thing is to be living morally. But within that, If you have two options of the way to live, one of which you know will be mis-interpreted by others, and one of which will not. And if neither of these options will have a negative impact on your morality, then this is the situation where what I was talking about applies.

I dont put this above morality, far from it.

But I do feel it is still a responsibility within the bounds of morality.

Matt
 

Given

1) People are idiots and are liable to misinterpret what they do.

2) I understand this.

3) I can see a way in which I will still be doing the right thing, but it is less likely that 1) will occur

Whats your problem with me doing thigs in that way? Whats your problem with you doing the same.

If we can make an effort to remove confusion for others, and it isnt even costing us our morality, whats the problem?

If everyones attitude was, "its not my job, so I wont do it" Then very little that is worthwile would ever get done.
 

To clarify, bluntly.

DO THE RIGHT THING.

(While STILL doing that, be aware of ways you can do it that will not be interpreted badly)
 

Am I the only one who thinks you have a responsibility to show people the /truth/, not necessarily what they want to see? Making the assumption that there is nothing morally/christianly wrong about what you're doing, letting people have a flawed assumption about the morality of what you're doing is surely an inferior option to showing them that what you're doing is okay?

If you're living morally correctly and people think you aren't, surely your responsibility is to prove that you /are/ - thus opening their minds and letting a little negativity flow out of the world - rather than changing the way you live so they don't have to deal with being wrong? Surely you should be making yourself an example by which people can come to understand that what you're doing isn't wrong, rather than stopping doing it because a bunch of people are ignorant?

Seems to me like the latter choice is very defensive and not at all like the pro-active attitude of the christian ideal.
 

chindogu: "If we can make an effort to remove confusion for others, and it isnt even costing us our morality, whats the problem?"

The problem, Matt, is when it costs us our /happiness/. An unhappy person cannot (as a general rule) successfully work to make others happy. Not to mention the negative face it puts on your religion - from the outside, a lot of people are just going to see that being morally correct means being miserable. Certainly not the idea you want to put forward, right?
 

Ok, I think its time for an example.

Rightly or wrongly, christians believe that non-believers go to hell.

Some of them use this, and say, that morally, they have to make everyone else christians in order to save their lives.

They have no concern for how they will be perceived, so they go up to people, and apply what I term "Rotissorie Evangerlism" (Turn or burn).

This succeeds only in offending the person in question, who is now in fact less likely to listen to anyone else expouting christianity.

Whats my point? By being concerned about how out actions appear to others and by actually acting in a way that will cater to where the listener is at, there is actually MORE chance they will listen to what you have to say.



Truth ::

Yeah, im not talking about lieing to people. Im talking about the way we present ourselves/ Our Ideas. I always think we should be telling the truth.. Or as much of it as they will hear (Sometimes more) by that I mean im not going to go up to my friends and tell them the truth (as I understand it to be) that there going to burn in hell. Its not helpfull

But imnot going to lie to them either. Im going to find a way of making my point in a less-offensive way.

Unhappyness ::

Hmm..interesting.. Im not sure where I stand on the balance between appearing to be doing the right thing and makeing yourself unhappy. Id need to think of an appropriate example.

What I'm not saying is that we have a responsibility to be unhappy and never do anything fun.

Ill think some more.
 

I think that we may have lost our way here. I think that this is what Matt and others are trying to say:

Matthew 5:14
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The main idea is in 16. We should live this way, not put on an act.

Further, James 2:14

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Christians try to do what is right and by this example "that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven".

Unhappyiness. Sin IS fun. If it was not then it would not be a problem. Would I like to have a 2 hour lunch each day? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? No. DOes it make me unhappy if I don't no, but it may make me happy on some level to do this. But not doing this will others be saved, maybe. More likely if they are doing it they will think that I'm a goody two shoes.
 

Gadgit - You make my point for me by saying "Does it make me unhappy if I don't no". Your example is completely inappropriate for what is being discussed, since it's a neat little bonus that would please you if you had it, but lacking it doesn't make you unhappy. I'm talking about giving up your right to be with the person you love, which can hardly be compared to a long lunchbreak (even if you really love lunchbreaks). And I'm not talking about something which is /actually/ wrong or sinful, just something that might be misinterpreted. Matt said "If we can make an effort to remove confusion for others, and it isnt even costing us our morality, whats the problem?". I say, "If we can remove confusion for others but it costs us our happiness - and /not/ making that effort isn't going to cost us our morality, since we weren't doing anything wrog in the first place - then removing that confusion is not our responsibility (and people need to grow the hell up and stop making assumptions)".

Obviously, there is a point of compromise somewhere between "don't give a screw how it looks" and "don't do anything that might be interpreted as being not 100% absolutely okay" - I am emphasising the importance of that point /not/ being at a stage where it creates unhappiness for a person. After all, christians say God wants them to be happy. If what a person is doing is right, and only through ignorance, assumption and misinterpretation can it seem wrong, then surely they deserve to be happy!
 

Matt: "They have no concern for how they will be perceived, so they go up to people, and apply what I term "Rotissorie Evangelism" (Turn or burn)."

Firstly, this is a term that is way older than you. Secondly, this (bullying people into entering the faith) is not loving christian behaviour and therefore backs up my point on Talen and Fox's blog: judge the faith on the minority who actually live it, not on the majority who do not. As this kind of activity is not godly behaviour, surely it actually does damage to your point, rather than backing it up: they are not revealing the truth of the faith in their actions, but are doing The Wrong Thing. This isn't about not caring about appearances and therefore making things worse. This example is about doing the wrong thing, the ungodly thing.

In the end, I'm all for diplomacy. It's very important in dealing with people in a loving and godly way. But it is possible to be diplomatic and honest. Diplomcay does not mean lies. And, at the end, there is also a time to throw tact and diplomacy to the four winds and metaphorically bludgeon people over the head with your point when they continue to spout nonsense. But this wasn't where this started anyway. This started with an apparent requirement that we should change our behaviour in case people misinterpret godly behaviour for ungodly behaviour.

Btw, Talen, dude, I love you!!! Though I never vindicated ignoring the bible. I simply said it wasn't Christ and therefore should not be worshipped as the be all and end all of the faith. Yes, that means all you fundamentalist christians out there.

Yes, all, James is damn cool. James is my favourite book of the bible (it ties for first place with Phillipians and Hosea, by the way) and a lot of that has to do with the fact that he says over and again "Live your faith." Not "live your faith when you think other people won't misjudge your actions." Not "live your faith unless other christians look down on you because they are projecting their own insecurities about their own sinful natures on to you." No. He says "Live your faith. It is a natural result of loving God.": "Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18b)

On top of that, who wants to grab their bible and see what it has to say about each of us judging others? Well, who wants to be the first to pervert God's perspective on that one?

And sin is fun? Not deliberate sin. Not if you have a conscience.
 

Unless the majority is right anbd homosexuality /is/ a sin. Because it is fun. Oh yes. Yes it is.

(Just thought I might break up the seriousness with some classic lech-Fox :p)